NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.  1102-1104  OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.2034-2036 of 2016)

P.N. MOHANAN NAIR ..........APPELLANT(s)

Versus

STATE OF KERALA         ......RESPONDENT(s)

O R D E R

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Leave granted.   

2. The  substantive  appeals  against  convictions  were

dismissed as withdrawn on 09.12.2016. Liberty was however

granted,  to  approach  this  court  again  if  required.  On  the

application made, the special leave petition was resurrected.  

1

3.  The  short  question of  law for  consideration  is,  if  the

offences essentially constitute a single transaction, but have

been split up by the prosecution into three separate cases, will

the  sentences  imposed  individually,  run  concurrently  or

consecutively?  The issue stands covered by the decisions in

V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2013) 7

SCC 211 followed in Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya, (2016)

10 SCC 761 and Benson vs. State of Kerala, (2016) 10 SCC

307.    

4. The appellant was a Peon in the office of Sub Registrar,

Vazhoor.  He was alleged to have misappropriated Rs.92,225/-

from  public  funds  during  1995-1996,  without  making

remittance  in  the  Sub  Treasury,  creating  false  challans

showing remittance.  The Prosecution initiated under Sections

13(2)  read  with  13(1)(c)  and  13(1)(d)  of  the  Prevention  of

Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and under

Sections  409,  465  and  471,  I.P.C.   was  split  up  in  three

different  cases,  for  the  period  07.07.1992  to  29.12.1992

2

registered as C.C. No.21/2002, for the period 21.10.1994 to

31.07.1995 registered as C.C. No.22/2002 and for the period

12.12.1995  to  30.08.1996  C.C.  No.23/2002  was  registered.

The three cases were tried jointly and common evidence was

recorded.

5. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur,

by a common judgment convicted the appellant to one year

rigorous imprisonment under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)

and 13(1)(d) of the Act in each one of them, along with fine of

Rs.15,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively.  The

conviction was further  under  Section 409 I.P.C to one year

rigorous imprisonment in each, as also three months rigorous

imprisonment each, under Sections 465 and 471 I.P.C.  The

substantive  sentences  in  each  case  were  directed  to  run

concurrently.   

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submits  that  the

allegations for misappropriation were for one transaction, in a

3

block period, for a quantified sum.  The appellant will have to

undergo the sentences consecutively for each conviction, after

the earlier sentence in a case exhausted itself.   The appellant

is 68 years old.  Reference was made to Section 427(1) Cr.P.C.

and Shyam Pal (supra) to contend that the sentences awarded

individually ought to be directed to run concurrently.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, referring to Section

31 Cr.P.C. submits that each case was a separate prosecution,

relating to a different time period, and for a different sum.  It is

only in a case where a person is tried in respect of two or more

offences  in  a  single  transaction,  that  the  sentence  can  be

directed to run concurrently.  

8. We have considered the respective submissions, and are

of  the opinion,  that essentially  the allegations constituted a

single  transaction,  between  the  same  parties  for  a  block

period,  split  up  by  the  prosecution,  presumably  for  its

convenience, into three different cases. The evidence also was

4

common,  and so  is  the  conviction.   Section 427(1),  Cr.P.C.

stipulates  that  where  a  person  undergoing  a  sentence  of

imprisonment  is  sentenced  on  a  subsequent  conviction  to

imprisonment,  it  shall  commence  at  the  expiration  of  the

imprisonment previously sentenced, unless the court directs

that  the  subsequent  sentence  shall  run  concurrently  with

such previous sentence.  The jurisdiction being discretionary

must be exercised on fair and just principles in the facts of a

case.

9. We do not consider it necessary to further elucidate or

enter  into  an  exposition  of  the  law,   in   view   of   the

precedents  noticed above.   Suffice  it  to  observe that  in  the

facts  of  the  case,  the  exercise  of  discretion  under  Section

427(1)  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  mandates  that  the

substantive sentences imposed upon the appellant in the three

separate  prosecutions,  are  directed  to  run  concurrently,

except  the  default   sentence,   if   the   fine   by   way   of

compensation  as  imposed  has  not  been  paid  by  him.

5

The appellant would naturally be entitled to all consequential

reliefs for release from custody as available in law based on

the present discussion.

10. The appeals stand disposed.

………………………………….J.  (Ranjan Gogoi)  

……….………………………..J.    (Navin Sinha)  

New Delhi, July 11, 2017

6

ITEM NO.1501               COURT NO.4         SECTION II-B (For Judgment)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.)NOS.2034-2036/2016 ARISING  OUT  OF  IMPUGNED  FINAL  JUDGMENT  AND  ORDER  DATED 13/11/2015 IN CRLA NOS. 980/2005, 981/2005 AND 982/2005 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM) P.N. MOHANAN NAIR                                 Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF KERALA                                   Respondent(s) Date : 11-07-2017 These appeals were called  

for pronouncement of judgment today.

For petitioner(s) Mr. V. K. Sidharthan, AOR                     For Respondent(s) Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR   

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and His Lordship.

Leave granted. The  appeals  stand  disposed  in  terms  of  the  signed

judgment. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER

(ASHA SONI) BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.)  

7